The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-06-08
SUPREME COURT CASES
Reported for The Clarion BY w. r. Harper
Attorney-at-lsw, Jackson, Miss.
April Term-IsSz.

-. II. LA n L..
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Alfalfa
county. Hon. c. Fl. Campbell, Judge.
W.P. & ]. B. Harris, for the appel
liant.
Allen & McCool, for the appellee.
This is an action for damages brought
by ]. H. Haynes against the Illinois
Central Railroad Company for failure
to deliver a certain carload of cattle
in New Orleans in a reasonable
time after shipment. 1t appears
that plaintiff shipped a carload of
cattle by defendants road from
Kosciusko to New Orleans; that the
train on which they were shipped was
delayed twenty four hours on the road
because of being overloaded and the
engine getting out of repair; that the
cattle suffered for want of food and
water, which resulted in loss to plaintiff |
by decrease in the value of the cattle. |
The plaintiff contended that he twice
tried 10 get the conductor of the train |
to side-track the car containing his |
cattle so that he could feed and water
them. This the defendant denied, and |
on this point the evidence was conflict |
ing.
On the trial the defendant introduced
evidence which tended to show that the
delay was unavoidable because of an
unusual press of business, it being
at that time of the year when the
Worlds Exposition of 1884 was being
held in New Orleans. The plaintiff in
PRODUCED as witness one Woods who
testified in his behalf. On cross-exami-
nation the defendant asked him if he
had not also sued defendent for damages
done to his cattle shipped on the same
train with plaintiffs cattle. This he an
swered in the affirmative. On the re-
direct examination, witness, in reply to a
question, said that defendant had settled
with him for such damages sustained by
him. To this answer the defendant OBJ
jected, but the objection was overruled.
The defendant introduced as a wit
ness in it's behalf one Rynes, conduc-
tor in its employ. On cross-examina-
ton he was asked, did you not state to
plaintiff in a conversation about this
case, about one month ago, between
McComb City and New Orleans, that
you and other employees of defendant
had to tell a favorable tale, the best
you could, in order to hold your job%'
To this he replied, II did not" The
defendant objected both to the question
| and answer, but the court Overruled the
objection.
The defendant having closed its evil
dence, the plaintiff testified in rebuttal
that Rynes had told him at the time
and under the circumstances set out
substantially what Is embodied in the
question above quoted.
The court among others instructed
the jury for the plaintiff as follows:
81. The court instructs the jury, that
| if they believe from the whole evidence
| in this cause that the railroad company
is guilty of negligence in not permitting
the said HAYNES to feed and water his
cattle if he desired to do so, and applied
to the proper parties, and his cattle
being damaged by reason of such refusal,
the said railroad company is liable to
him for the said amount of proven
damages in this cause, with SIX per
cent. interest thereon, from the date of
said damage to plaintiffs cattle"
The effect of other instructions neces-
sary to be known is stated in the 0pin-
ion of the court.
The jury found for the plaintiff and
the defendant appealed.
COOPER, c. J., delivered the opinion of
the Court.
The instructions are not contradictory,
and on the whole case fairly presented
the law to the jury. Looking only to
the instructions for the plaintiff it might
be said that the jury was not sufficiently
told what was reasonable expedition of
the freight carried, but this defect is
fully supplied by the full and accurate
instructions for the defendant, and it is
| impossible that the jury could have
failed to understand the rule announced.
BY plaintiffs instructions the jury was
told that the defendant was under a
duty to carry within a reasonable time,
but by those given for the defendant it
was also informed that in determining
what was reasonable time all the sur
rounding circumstances must be kept
in view, and that the delay occasioned
by an unusual and exceptional press of
| business was not to be considered as I'M
reasonable.
| We think the defendant can not COM
plain of tie instruction by which the
jury was told that the plaintiff was en-
| titled to interest from the date of the
breach of the contract if the suit be con-
sidered as one for breach of contract, or
from the date of the injury if the action
be viewed as one in tort.
1t was not error to permit the plain
| tiff to ask the witness Wood whether
the defendant had settled the suit
which he had brought against it for
damages done to his cattle carried on
the same train. If this evidence had
been drawn from the witness on direct
examination objection might have justly
been taken thereto. But the defendant,
for the purpose of proving this witness
| to be unfrieDdly to it, had asked him if
| he had not brought suit against it to
recover damages for a similar injury /;
| the purpose of the testimony then
drawn out by the plaintiff was to show
that no reason existed for unfriendly
| feeling since the suit had been settled
between the parties.
| The court did not err in permitting
the plaintiff to contradict the witness
Rynes, by proving against him, his
statement previously made that he
would testify as favorable as possible
for the defendant, which declaration
was decided that he had made.
The general rule is that where one
ON cross examination asks witness an
imm aterial question, he can not contra
dict the answer given, but must content
himself with the reply given. But
where the purpose is to show motive or
bias in favor of one party or against the
other the rule does not prevail. Such
we think was the character of the decla-
ration made by the witness Rynes as
testified to by the plaintiff. We do not
understand that under such circum-
stances the witness must be asked
whether he has or has not bias: it is
sufficient to inquire of him whether he
has or has not made the declaration,
for, res ipsa loquitur. Newcomb vs.. The
State, 81 Miss, 1888; Attorney-General
VS.. Hitchcock, Exchequer, 81; Ed
wards VS.. Sullivan, s Iredell, 302. We
think there is no error N the record
and the judgment is affirmed.